Do you guys buy or actively consume Rated M/or R-rated media?

[danielmann861]

Cuties has been taken out of context a bit; it isn't really meant as a sexualisation of children, but more of a child's struggle to grow up and fit in, while being in a restrictive, highly-conservative Muslim family and living in France (urban Paris, I believe), when you are surrounded by peers who are raised quite differently.

I think that is the problem though. At it's most basic level it is a basic coming of age story about a young (very young in this case) girl coming of age and trying to escape from her repressive Muslim life and doing so by wanting to fit in with the local girls by emulating them but going to another level with it. It's the most of coming of age stories at its core. The problem I have with it is the casual objectification of the young kids. On the one hand, it wants to condemn the hyper sexualisation of kids, but it does so by hyper sexualising children. I get the point that it's supposed to be throwing it in your face and making you feel uncomfortable, but to me it just feels like they're preaching to the converted. All of these scenes with the framing and music are still objectifying kids.

I just think the film is misguided more than anything else. It wants to have its cake and (almost unintentionally) eat it too.

 

[高野和泉]

I think that is the problem though. At it's most basic level it is a basic coming of age story about a young (very young in this case) girl coming of age and trying to escape from her repressive Muslim life and doing so by wanting to fit in with the local girls by emulating them but going to another level with it. It's the most of coming of age stories at its core. The problem I have with it is the casual objectification of the young kids. On the one hand, it wants to condemn the hyper sexualisation of kids, but it does so by hyper sexualising children. I get the point that it's supposed to be throwing it in your face and making you feel uncomfortable, but to me it just feels like they're preaching to the converted. All of these scenes with the framing and music are still objectifying kids.

I just think the film is misguided more than anything else. It wants to have its cake and (almost unintentionally) eat it too.

would it be better/safer if hiring adults to act like children instead of casting real kids? just curios.

 

[Truck_1_0_1_]

I know what you mean by your post, but without context, reading the first part of your post made me chuckle lol

 

[danielmann861]

would it be better/safer if hiring adults to act like children instead of casting real kids? just curios.

I think in some ways it would maybe be less objectionable had they casted a little older. Had this been a story about 16 or 17 year olds, I think it still would have drawn ire (what doesn't in today's hyper sensitive world?) but maybe less than it did. If that makes sense.

I really do think it's the young age of the kids in question that people are repelled by, yes. And I get it, even I was thinking that even though its intentions are well meaning, it's still walking a tight rope in condemning while also hyper sexualising them.

Like I said, I think it was well intentioned, but terribly misguided in execution.

I brought up Larry Clark in my original post. Anyone who knows anything about Larry Clark certainly knows about the 90's film KIDS. Which is a pseudo docu-drama telling the story of a couple of wayward kids in NYC whose lives revolve around skateboarding, sex and drugs. Kids who are just drifting aimlessly through life can best sum up Larry Clark's entire career, actually.

It too was very controversial back in the day for its subject matter and many called its Director guilty of making Pedo-Bait. Yet, I could and did see the flip side of the argument towards that movie back in the day. That almost everyone in that film was 18 and over portraying 16 or younger. That and if you really look at the sex scenes in KIDS, they're not at all erotic or a turn on. Rather they are very uncomfortable. KIDS is a cautionary tale more than it is pedo-bait. It's just unrelenting because of how real it feels even though it is entirely scripted.

Again, it walks the tight rope and one could argue that film is also guilty of having its cake and eating it too...but I found it easier to defend simply because the actors in it were of legal age portraying younger than they actually were. That and I do think Clark is a moral film maker. Just see his masterpiece Bully and you'll see a film that is very critical of the behaviour it depicts.

I think with Cuties, it's all the more discomforting because of how young those kids are. But even more discomforting to me was the totally unearned redemption of its main character. At least Larry Clark's KIDS or Bully don't try to redeem their unredeemable characters which almost makes the moral point stronger (if not admittedly a little preachy). Whereas with Cuties, I felt the ending was totally unearned and made me question the point of everything I watched before hand when its main character didn't seem to learn anything. Like I said, I understood their intent, but just a misguided film, I felt. I can understand the repulsion on the one hand, though I don't think it's kiddy porn, although it does walk a serious tight rope line towards appeasing said certain audience, but I really find it hard to defend just because I felt it was pretty worthless even as a coming of age story.

An entirely well intentioned but misguided film is how I feel about it and what I stand by in describing it.

 

[高野和泉]

I think in some ways it would maybe be less objectionable had they casted a little older. Had this been a story about 16 or 17 year olds, I think it still would have drawn ire (what doesn't in today's hyper sensitive world?) but maybe less than it did. If that makes sense.

I really do think it's the young age of the kids in question that people are repelled by, yes. And I get it, even I was thinking that even though its intentions are well meaning, it's still walking a tight rope in condemning while also hyper sexualising them.

Like I said, I think it was well intentioned, but terribly misguided in execution.

I brought up Larry Clark in my original post. Anyone who knows anything about Larry Clark certainly knows about the 90's film KIDS. Which is a pseudo docu-drama telling the story of a couple of wayward kids in NYC whose lives revolve around skateboarding, sex and drugs. Kids who are just drifting aimlessly through life can best sum up Larry Clark's entire career, actually.

It too was very controversial back in the day for its subject matter and many called its Director guilty of making Pedo-Bait. Yet, I could and did see the flip side of the argument towards that movie back in the day. That almost everyone in that film was 18 and over portraying 16 or younger. That and if you really look at the sex scenes in KIDS, they're not at all erotic or a turn on. Rather they are very uncomfortable. KIDS is a cautionary tale more than it is pedo-bait. It's just unrelenting because of how real it feels even though it is entirely scripted.

Again, it walks the tight rope and one could argue that film is also guilty of having its cake and eating it too...but I found it easier to defend simply because the actors in it were of legal age portraying younger than they actually were. That and I do think Clark is a moral film maker. Just see his masterpiece Bully and you'll see a film that is very critical of the behaviour it depicts.

I think with Cuties, it's all the more discomforting because of how young those kids are. But even more discomforting to me was the totally unearned redemption of its main character. At least Larry Clark's KIDS or Bully don't try to redeem their unredeemable characters which almost makes the moral point stronger (if not admittedly a little preachy). Whereas with Cuties, I felt the ending was totally unearned and made me question the point of everything I watched before hand when its main character didn't seem to learn anything. Like I said, I understood their intent, but just a misguided film, I felt. I can understand the repulsion on the one hand, though I don't think it's kiddy porn, although it does walk a serious tight rope line towards appeasing said certain audience, but I really find it hard to defend just because I felt it was pretty worthless even as a coming of age story.

An entirely well intentioned but misguided film is how I feel about it and what I stand by in describing it.

Interesting perspective, I'd say this is quite a rare view based upon everything I've seen around the net on the "controversy".

 

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Because Dan actually comes from a place of logic and sensibility; the majority of people on the 'net are all, "outrage, outrage, OUTRAGE!"

 

[danielmann861]

Because Dan actually comes from a place of logic and sensibility; the majority of people on the 'net are all, "outrage, outrage, OUTRAGE!"

I think it's the result of not having a Witch Burning account -- Oh sorry, I meant Twitter account

 

[bcdcdude]

It's interesting Larry Clark's "Kids" is brought up as it's one of those films I can't bring myself to watch. I've mentioned fairly often how I don't like the sexualisation of the young or teenagers unless it's for comedic purposes. It could be because I had a very delayed and stunted sexual life (without going into too much detail), but whilst i'm OK with almost all forms of exploitation, that's the one of the few things I can't deal with. That said, I do quite like Harmony Korine's films (I believe he wrote 'Kids'?), so i'm pretty confused.

I'm not sure if anyone knows of a British TV show popular in the mid-00's called "Skins"? It's full of teenagers taking drugs, having sex and being miserable; whilst i'll give anything a go, that I had to give a hard pass (i'm anti drugs* for the most part). There was a scene where a young woman was giving a guy a blow job to a beautiful Sigur Rós song that tainted that song for me. I'll never forgive the show for that. That said, on the other side, something like "The Inbetweeners" i'm totally OK with (basically an English version of American Pie) as the sex scenes are done for comedic purposes and bizarrely sweet in some ways.

Hope this makes sense; i'm drinking some strong 8% beers after getting through Dry January haha.

*although I love stoner rock, 70's prog-rock and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, so what do I know?

 

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Not to get OT, but my father's 3 favourite bands are King Crimson, Yes and Emerson, Lake & Palmer (with the latter being probably his favourite), so I know the sentiment!

 

[danielmann861]

It's interesting Larry Clark's "Kids" is brought up as it's one of those films I can't bring myself to watch. I've mentioned fairly often how I don't like the sexualisation of the young or teenagers unless it's for comedic purposes. It could be because I had a very delayed and stunted sexual life (without going into too much detail), but whilst i'm OK with almost all forms of exploitation, that's the one of the few things I can't deal with. That said, I do quite like Harmony Korine's films (I believe he wrote 'Kids'?), so i'm pretty confused.

I'm not sure if anyone knows of a British TV show popular in the mid-00's called "Skins"? It's full of teenagers taking drugs, having sex and being miserable; whilst i'll give anything a go, that I had to give a hard pass (i'm anti drugs* for the most part). There was a scene where a young woman was giving a guy a blow job to a beautiful Sigur Rós song that tainted that song for me. I'll never forgive the show for that. That said, on the other side, something like "The Inbetweeners" i'm totally OK with (basically an English version of American Pie) as the sex scenes are done for comedic purposes and bizarrely sweet in some ways.

Hope this makes sense; i'm drinking some strong 8% beers after getting through Dry January haha.

*although I love stoner rock, 70's prog-rock and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, so what do I know?

Yeah, I get what you mean. I totally get what you mean. I understand why Larry Clark's work is so divisive. I mean hell, I got kicked out of my photography class in Year 11 because of his work. Well, it's a bit of a long story. Basically it was around the time that his film Ken Park had been released and I was doing a big end of year study on Larry Clark. We were told to study one artist and basically do a theory sort of thing studying their work and I chose Larry Clark because his work was very interesting to me as a teen.

Also, the film Ken Park had been recently banned in Australia at that time but was making it rounds on bootleg DVD's and you could find it if you knew where to look. So I had seen a bootleg DVD copy at that point. Anyways, I needed stills from said film for my assignment and the computer lab had DVD readers in their PC's. So I took my bootleg copy of Ken Park and was capturing stills from it. I was late for my next class and in a hurry to get to English and I left one screen shot on the monitor. It was the one scene involving James Ransone portraying auto erotic asphyxiation. And who should walk in to use said computer after I leave but a Year 7 student (year 7 being freshmen for those who don't know how Australian High School grades work)

He saw the rather controversial image. Reported it. I got called into question because I was the last person using said PC. Tried to argue my case that it wasn't pornography and rather something that was for a photography assignment. Basically got the ultimatum that I was to be suspended for a week from school and I pretty much wasn't welcome back to photography and had to change out classes. To be fair, I think my photography teachers wanted me out because I was that kid that always gravitated towards controversial artists and the photography teacher did not like my choice of study.

But anyways, anecdote aside. I understand why his work is divisive and why people would not be comfortable with it. It certainly straddles that same line that Cuties does. But I think I give it a bit more of a pass just because of the fact that I knows it's legal aged actors playing younger than they were when shooting. And like I said, Ken Park aside, I don't think he really tries to redeem his characters actions rather he paints them as sad, shabby and pathetic in a moralistic reminder that it's a cautionary tale more than anything else.

But my argument has always been that the sex scenes in his work come from a place of uncomfortable truth and that he is largely a moral film maker. Teenagers think about sex. We've all been there, we all know. His work simply is highlighting that uncomfortable truth and further more exhibiting the fractured side of America that one would like to sweep under the rug.

Ken Park is a perfect example. Every sex scene bar the finale menage a is abusive in nature. It's not meant to be a turn on of a film rather a deeply uncomfortable one. Hence why the final threesome in that film between the three kids is actually quite carthatic and almost sweet as its a sigh of relief from the onslaught of abuse that came before hand.

I mean, his book Tulsa was quite prominent back in its day as it was showing a side of life that society would frown upon and discussing it frankly. That and his shot composition was very filmic even back in his younger days before he became a film maker. You can see why Scorsese and the likes drew inspiration from his photos. It was a gritty truth at a time where society would rather sweep it under the rug.

Now admitedly, I think Larry Clark's work grew thin. I think once he made Kids, Bully and Ken Park, I was pretty much done with him as a filmmaker as I felt like I've seen everything I need to from him. I stand by those three films though. I do think there is merit to those three films. They do work as a sort of unofficial trilogy. Especially Bully.

Bully really is a fantastic film. It's a murder film that truly calls the bluff on films that pretend to be about murder and actually shows all the senselessness of the real thing. I think Bully really is his defining masterpiece. But I don't know if I need to see anything more from Clark. I mean he is good at highlighting wayward teens (usually skateboarders) but he really doesn't have much else left in the tank and there is only so much of that I need to see.

You know what? I'm surprised his name has never come up with this whole #metoo movement. When that broke out, I really thought his name would come up almost immediately involved with some scandal. But so far, to my knowledge, nothing has come out about him. But it is kind of strange to me that a lot of male actors involved with his films had their demons and are no longer with us. So I do wonder? Although, Leo Fitzpatrick is still with us and he considers Larry to be a father like figure. So maybe he is innocent? Don't know...always wondered about that though and if there is a scandal waiting to break about him or not.

I think Harmony is the more creative of the two. I don't like all of Harmony Korine's films. But I really adore Gummo, Julien Donkey-Boy and especially Spring Breakers. I think Harmony ended up being the creatively more interesting of the pair as time went on.

Anyways, that's enough rambling about Larry Clark and Harmony Korine.

I've never seen Skins so I really can't comment on that, but I do love the fuck out of The Inbetweeners

Absolutely adored that show. One of the best cringe comedies of the past decade. (I'm a sucker for cringe comedy, see my love of Larry David.)

 

[bcdcdude]

I must admit I found 'Spring Breakers' pretty tedious, but i'm not sure if the film is meant to highlight that these people high on drugs, sex and crime are meant to be portrayed as sad people or if the film celebrates it. Sometimes it's hard for me to tell the difference! That said, it's a beautifully shot film. Something like 'Trash Humpers' is also tedious, but I love the fact that such a bizarre and fucked up film should be allowed to exist! The only other film of his i've seen is 'Mister Lonely' and I thought that was fantastic.

Yeah, i'm a big fan of cringe comedy! I think with The Inbetweeners, the guys are relatively likable even if they are kinda hopeless. We've all had a friend who bragged about the exploits he did and it turned out to be bullshit. It's also not a cruel show if that makes sense? It took me a long time to *get* Curb Your Enthusiasm, but once I got it, I loved it, but man it's not the easiest show to watch!

I won't go into too much detail, but back in the day I got really into watching the sickest stuff I could find, but when a friend called me out on it, I realised that I was doing it for the wrong reasons; I still watch some difficult stuff, but now I like to think i'm mature enough to understand the methodology behind difficult films (like the cannibal films of the 70's and 80's etc). Considering I find real life frightening (loud noises scare me for example), I think when I watch a film, I know i'm watching acting (unless it's a documentary).

How much of it is the thrill of the illicit or trying to understand the evils of the world is one I frequently grapple with. Then again, I love romance films, cute cartoons (MIFFY!!) and gentle hearted films, so I like to think that I achieve equilibrium!